Jody Millennium & Tai Ping

October 15th, 2003 by JCB
Posted in Articles | No Comments »

Those of you who have been following my articles on the Jody F Millennium grounding may be forgiven for thinking that I am a bit obsessed by events that have occurred in the antipodes when there is so much happening closer to our own shores. Maybe you are right but with shipping being a world wide operation, events in other countries may have a significant effect on our own operations. It is my personal opinion that the Jody and Tai Ping cases will have an effect on port operations over here and in particular may just make those currently eager to introduce competition and subject pilotage to market forces think again.

Original magazine article (Page 11) : pilotmag.co.uk/userfiles/Pilotmag%20275%20(Oct%2003).pdf

Jody F Millennium

You will recall in the case of the Jody that the manner in which the pilot was appointed was not in accordance with correct procedures and with a claim of NZ$23 million currently being lodged against Port Gisborne and Gisborne District Council the lawyers are looking very carefully at this aspect of the incident. To recap on the appointment controversy.

In 1998 Port Gisborne (part of Gisborne District Council) decided to outsource the pilotage in the port using Adsteam as the service provider. A qualified and experience Napier pilot, Robert Sands applied for the post, but the incumbent pilot Ian Cook was in disagreement with Port Gisborne and not wishing to work for Adsteam did not apply for the post. Whilst Ian Cook took Robert Sands on board for a few observation passages the bad feeling between himself and Adsteam resulted in no formal training being undertaken and Robert Sands’ training was completed by a relieving pilot. Robert Sands was then examined by this relieving pilot and the General Manager of Adsteam. He was duly granted his Gisborne licence and was subsequently appointed as Gisborne pilot by Port Gisborne. In taking this action Port Gisborne had effectively breached the NZ MSA procedures whereby a pilot examination board has to be appointed by the director of maritime safety and this panel were not. The NZ MSA were advised of the examination and the

appointment after it had been completed, an action that concerned the MSA and the NZ Maritime Pilots’ Association deeply. In the end the MSA decided that if the examiners had applied to the Director then they would have been found compliant and although they registered a written complaint against Port Gisborne they decided that the appointment was valid. The NZMPA therefore reluctantly had to accept this decision. Legally, it would appear that since the examination procedures were not statutory then the breach will probably not be pursuable by the insurance claimants. However, this aspect of the incident will probably throw the spotlight onto pilot training.

Tai Ping

In the case of the Tai Ping stranding off South Port (as reported in the July issue) initial findings by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) into the grounding found that a significant contributory factor was that because the pilot had not received any instrument training, once the vessel was engulfed in thick fog, the pilot became disorientated which led to the grounding. Since writing that report the TAIC has issued its full report and this has confirmed that the pilot “lost situational awareness” and thus “devised strategies to help him continue visual pilotage”. However the most significant finding is that the South Port pilot/tug training manual required staff to receive instrument only training but this had not been undertaken. The report therefore recommended that South Port use simulator training to ensure that “staff can respond to any conditions”. In this case the insurers have issued a claim against South Port and South Port and its marine manager are facing a total of eight charges relating to the grounding. Two charges are against the manager for operating the tug “in a manner causing unnecessary danger or risk to other people and property” and the third charge against the manager is for “failing to ensure that the tug was navigated in accordance with maritime regulations. As employers of the manager South Port faces the same three charges plus a further two charges for “providing compulsory pilotage services and tug assistance to the Tai Ping in a manner causing unnecessary danger”.